Subconscious Fear of Death - the Root of Religions

[Eodnhoj7]

About an hour ago I was driving home from the gym.

A woman needed help with bus fair and getting home to her kids.

I had barely anything to give her, but I gave her what I had.

Is "I had barely anything to give her", just a BELIEF that "justifies" one's own self for being the Truly GREEDY human being, which they really ARE?

Not really, if I have to over draw an account or give someone my coat because that is what I have one me at the time there really isn't much else to be done.

Everything about her disgusted me. Her attitude, her dress, her lifestyle...everything.

I have not heard a human being speak from such a holier-than-thou attitude for quite a while now.

Really, because it is quite honest of an opinion. You never been disgusted by someone before? Or humanity itself? I would hardly relegate it to holy or not holy. If a person's attitude, behavior, or otherwise is disgusting....it is disgusting.

I gave her what I barely had because that is how divine law operates.

Is "I gave her what I barely had" just more "self-justification" for being GREEDY?

See above.

Someone asks for help, and even when they may or may not deserve it

Is there ANY one who does NOT 'deserve' HELP?

Yes, pigs. For example, if a person who is hungry is picky about the food they are recieving they are not hungry enough.

...you do what you can precisely because you do not know their story.

Is that the only reason?

Of course not, but a reason is still a reason.

She might have deserved it, or mostly likely not. Who really knows but God.

Is there ABSOLUTELY any one that does not deserves HELP?

Is "mostly likely not" just another holier-than-thou BELIEF.

No, see above.

Honestly Veritas, shut up....you have no clue what reality is.

Have you gave what you had to someone in need? Even just standing there listening to there life story? Or handed out sandwiches you paid for? Or given your favorite coat? Or ministered to a dying person trying to give comfort while the world is literally trying to euthanize them?

Shut the fuck up you pretentious p****.

Damn religion all you want, damn God for things not working out your way or whatever, but your intellect isn't going to solve an existence that is fundamentally irrational.

What is supposedly "fundamentally irrational about Existence"? To me, there is absolutely NOTHING 'irrational' about Existence, other than some (most?) of what 'you' adult human beings do, in the days of when this is written.

You began the above with "to me" a subjective statement and fallacy. Also "you adult human beings", when you yourself are human, is a holier than thou art attitude...unless you are claiming to be from another planet...lol.

Nothing surprises me anymore though.

Also, what is there exactly to 'solve' about Existence?

The only things that need solving are the problems that 'you', human beings, are continually creating.

Cut it up into whatever categories you want, at the end of the day philosophy is just dealing with the desolate nature of existence

To me, there is NO desolate nature of Existence. In fact the nature of Existence is absolutely perfectly wonderful AND beautiful.

But absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer.

So you are calling your self wonderful and beautiful?

...and if you would just shut up and listen to the damned you see on the streets you would realize you have no conception of what true empty horror the majority of the world deals with everyday.

Nobody gives two fucks about Kant.

[Eodnhoj7]

That is the point, I relied on faith on the scientists

Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts --Richard Feynman

why are you accusing me of stepping outside the Universe to study it in a divine manner?

Because you are making claims about it.

Science studies things by observation e.g the observer is always on the "outside" of that which is being observed.

How can science study The Universe if all scientists are are on the inside of the test subject? You have necessarily gone too far in your own mind to even imagine The Universe as a subject of scientific observation.

Scientific knowledge is at best polished conjectures - Karl Popper.

So what?
What counts is whether the polished conjectures are objective, useful or not.

The Universe is all of space and time[a] and their contents,[10] including planets, stars, galaxies, and all other forms of matter and energy. While the spatial size of the entire Universe is unknown,[3] it is possible to measure the size of the observable universe, which is currently estimated to be 93 billion light-years in diameter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe

Nobody else is interested in studying the Universe from an independent standpoint, only you and Eodnhoj7 are doing that from the divine perspective.

And what is objectivity or use?

You do understand you just went in full circle claiming the embodiment the nature of "conjecture" you accuse other's of having?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts --Richard Feynman


Because you are making claims about it.

Science studies things by observation e.g the observer is always on the "outside" of that which is being observed.

How can science study The Universe if all scientists are are on the inside of the test subject? You have necessarily gone too far in your own mind to even imagine The Universe as a subject of scientific observation.

Scientific knowledge is at best polished conjectures - Karl Popper.

So what?
What counts is whether the polished conjectures are objective, useful or not.

The Universe is all of space and time[a] and their contents,[10] including planets, stars, galaxies, and all other forms of matter and energy. While the spatial size of the entire Universe is unknown,[3] it is possible to measure the size of the observable universe, which is currently estimated to be 93 billion light-years in diameter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe

Nobody else is interested in studying the Universe from an independent standpoint, only you and Eodnhoj7 are doing that from the divine perspective.

And what is objectivity or use?

You do understand you just went in full circle claiming the embodiment the nature of "conjecture" you accuse other's of having?

Objectivity = objective scientific knowledge

Use:
Understanding the solar system and how it effects Earth environment is critical for the survival of humanity.
The Earth will eventually be inhabitable.
As such an understanding of the universe, its parts and system would provide the possibility of humans reaching other inhabitable planets.
How could human reached the moon and be able to explore other planets if we have not been studying to understand the universe and its parts.
Don't you know that?

You think by doing nothing your God will save humanity from an uninhabitable Earth??

[Eodnhoj7]

Scientific knowledge is at best polished conjectures - Karl Popper.

So what?
What counts is whether the polished conjectures are objective, useful or not.



Nobody else is interested in studying the Universe from an independent standpoint, only you and Eodnhoj7 are doing that from the divine perspective.

And what is objectivity or use?

You do understand you just went in full circle claiming the embodiment the nature of "conjecture" you accuse other's of having?

Objectivity = objective scientific knowledge

You just used a tautology and you are equating objectivity to perspective as well.

Use:
Understanding the solar system and how it effects Earth environment is critical for the survival of humanity.
The Earth will eventually be inhabitable.
Because of the tech we used developed by science....population growth problems? Right during the industrial revolution.


As such an understanding of the universe, its parts and system would provide the possibility of humans reaching other inhabitable planets.
Using means which already kill the planet and will kill the new planets.


How could human reached the moon and be able to explore other planets if we have not been studying to understand the universe and its parts.
Don't you know that?



You think by doing nothing your God will save humanity from an uninhabitable Earth??

See above, the science you use for tech results in the same problems you are trying to avoid. It is like creating a TV to watch nature, while complaining the TV production destroys nature.

You have no card.

[Veritas Aequitas]

And what is objectivity or use?

You do understand you just went in full circle claiming the embodiment the nature of "conjecture" you accuse other's of having?

Objectivity = objective scientific knowledge

You just used a tautology and you are equating objectivity to perspective as well.

Use:
Understanding the solar system and how it effects Earth environment is critical for the survival of humanity.
The Earth will eventually be inhabitable.
Because of the tech we used developed by science....population growth problems? Right during the industrial revolution.


As such an understanding of the universe, its parts and system would provide the possibility of humans reaching other inhabitable planets.
Using means which already kill the planet and will kill the new planets.

How could human reached the moon and be able to explore other planets if we have not been studying to understand the universe and its parts.
Don't you know that?

You think by doing nothing your God will save humanity from an uninhabitable Earth??

See above, the science you use for tech results in the same problems you are trying to avoid. It is like creating a TV to watch nature, while complaining the TV production destroys nature.

You have no card.

You are really ignorant as sh1t.

Yes, objectivity is perspectival but with intersubjective consensus.
Objectivity = intersubjective consensus of justified true beliefs.

Scientific knowledge has to advance to deal with more complex problems which are identified as possible to pose a threat to humanity.
How can we escape the inhabitable Earth [destroyed by man or otherwise] if we do not explore more advanced knowledge of Science and others?

You don't know there are the pros and cons of Scientific knowledge?
True, there are still a ignorant majority who are living selfishly towards destroying the Earth.

But, you are ignorant of the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics.
All humans has an inherent moral function and on average it is getting active, thus there are more moral attuned people now than 1000 years ago.
This is why more and more people are concern about climate change, slavery [abolished legally], and other evils.

The advancement of the moral function of the average human will outweigh the cons from the abuse of Science.

[Age]

About an hour ago I was driving home from the gym.

A woman needed help with bus fair and getting home to her kids.

I had barely anything to give her, but I gave her what I had.

Is "I had barely anything to give her", just a BELIEF that "justifies" one's own self for being the Truly GREEDY human being, which they really ARE?

Not really, if I have to over draw an account or give someone my coat because that is what I have one me at the time there really isn't much else to be done.

If you had the ABILITY to "over draw an account" or "give someone your coat because that is what you had on you at the time", then OBVIOUSLY you had MORE than "barely ANY THING to give".

If you HAVE, to give, then you obviously HAVE MORE THAN ENOUGH.

Everything about her disgusted me. Her attitude, her dress, her lifestyle...everything.

I have not heard a human being speak from such a holier-than-thou attitude for quite a while now.

Really, because it is quite honest of an opinion.

Being Honest does NOT remove 'you' from having a 'holier-than-thou' attitude.

You never been disgusted by someone before? Or humanity itself? I would hardly relegate it to holy or not holy. If a person's attitude, behavior, or otherwise is disgusting....it is disgusting.

Yes IF some thing disgusts 'you', then it is "disgusting", to 'you'.

You said; "EVERYthing about her disgusted you". Therefore, absolutely EVERY thing about another human being "disgusted", 'you'.

Some of the attitudes 'you', human beings, have towards each other, like a holier-than-now attitude would disgust 'Me'. BUT I KNOW WHY those attitudes exist. The same goes with some of the behaviors 'you', human beings, do to each other, and to your one and only home, would disgust me. But, again, I KNOW WHY those behaviors exist.

I gave her what I barely had because that is how divine law operates.

Is "I gave her what I barely had" just more "self-justification" for being GREEDY?

See above.

Someone asks for help, and even when they may or may not deserve it

Is there ANY one who does NOT 'deserve' HELP?

Yes, pigs.

Why do pigs NOT deserve help but ALL other animals do?

For example, if a person who is hungry is picky about the food they are recieving they are not hungry enough.

What has this got to do with HELPING?

Also, how can a person be 'hungry' if, as you say, "they are NOT hungry enough"? The two do NOT go logically together.

Sure, some one might TRICK 'you' into believing that they are hungry, when they are NOT, but this is a fault of 'you'. IF 'you' can be 'tricked' so easily, then that is a great LIFE lesson, that is; IF you take it, and learn by it.

...you do what you can precisely because you do not know their story.

Is that the only reason?

Of course not, but a reason is still a reason.

If the point you wanted to make here was; A reason IS a reason, then you could have just said that earlier.

The point I was making was the way you wrote, it appeared that the sole reason WHY 'you' "do what you can" is PRECISELY "because you do not know their story".

So, are you now saying that there actually could be MANY other PRECISE reasons WHY 'you' "do what you can"?

She might have deserved it, or mostly likely not. Who really knows but God.

Is there ABSOLUTELY any one that does not deserves HELP?

Is "mostly likely not" just another holier-than-thou BELIEF.

No, see above.

But, from above, from My perspective, you have reiterated that you BELIEVE you are MORE holier-than-thou than I first noticed.

Honestly Veritas, shut up....you have no clue what reality is.

Have you gave what you had to someone in need? Even just standing there listening to there life story? Or handed out sandwiches you paid for? Or given your favorite coat? Or ministered to a dying person trying to give comfort while the world is literally trying to euthanize them?

Shut the fuck up you pretentious p****.

Damn religion all you want, damn God for things not working out your way or whatever, but your intellect isn't going to solve an existence that is fundamentally irrational.

What is supposedly "fundamentally irrational about Existence"? To me, there is absolutely NOTHING 'irrational' about Existence, other than some (most?) of what 'you' adult human beings do, in the days of when this is written.

You began the above with "to me" a subjective statement and fallacy.

OF COURSE 'to me' infers a 'subjective statement' BUT what is meant by, when you say, "and fallacy".

WHY does starting a statement with 'To me' make the rest of the statement 'A FALLACY'?

Also "you adult human beings", when you yourself are human, is a holier than thou art attitude

Are 'you' able to answer the question, "Who am 'I'?" properly AND correctly?

If yes, then I would like to SEE it.

if no, then 'you' do NOT know who NOR what 'I' am.

Saying, " 'you' 'yourself are human' ", is very BIG CLAIM. Are 'you' now able to back it up?

If yes, then I would LOVE to SEE it.

If no, then that makes sense.

...unless you are claiming to be from another planet...lol.

lol

Nothing surprises me anymore though.

ok

Also, what is there exactly to 'solve' about Existence?

The only things that need solving are the problems that 'you', human beings, are continually creating.

Cut it up into whatever categories you want, at the end of the day philosophy is just dealing with the desolate nature of existence

To me, there is NO desolate nature of Existence. In fact the nature of Existence is absolutely perfectly wonderful AND beautiful.

But absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer.

So you are calling your self wonderful and beautiful?

Are you TELLING or ASKING?

The question mark infers the latter, while the statement infers the former.

...and if you would just shut up and listen to the damned you see on the streets you would realize you have no conception of what true empty horror the majority of the world deals with everyday.

Nobody gives two fucks about Kant.

[Age]

Objectivity = objective scientific knowledge

You just used a tautology and you are equating objectivity to perspective as well.

Use:
Understanding the solar system and how it effects Earth environment is critical for the survival of humanity.
The Earth will eventually be inhabitable.
Because of the tech we used developed by science....population growth problems? Right during the industrial revolution.


As such an understanding of the universe, its parts and system would provide the possibility of humans reaching other inhabitable planets.
Using means which already kill the planet and will kill the new planets.

How could human reached the moon and be able to explore other planets if we have not been studying to understand the universe and its parts.
Don't you know that?

You think by doing nothing your God will save humanity from an uninhabitable Earth??

See above, the science you use for tech results in the same problems you are trying to avoid. It is like creating a TV to watch nature, while complaining the TV production destroys nature.

You have no card.

You are really ignorant as sh1t.

Yes, objectivity is perspectival but with intersubjective consensus.
Objectivity = intersubjective consensus of justified true beliefs.

Scientific knowledge has to advance to deal with more complex problems which are identified as possible to pose a threat to humanity.
How can we escape the inhabitable Earth [destroyed by man or otherwise] if we do not explore more advanced knowledge of Science and others?

You don't know there are the pros and cons of Scientific knowledge?
True, there are still a ignorant majority who are living selfishly towards destroying the Earth.

But, you are ignorant of the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics.
All humans has an inherent moral function and on average it is getting active, thus there are more moral attuned people now than 1000 years ago.
This is why more and more people are concern about climate change, slavery [abolished legally], and other evils.

The advancement of the moral function of the average human will outweigh the cons from the abuse of Science.

Do 'you', "veritas aequitas", actually BELIEVE that 'you' are NOT living selfishly?

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are really ignorant as sh1t.

Yes, objectivity is perspectival but with intersubjective consensus.
Objectivity = intersubjective consensus of justified true beliefs.

Scientific knowledge has to advance to deal with more complex problems which are identified as possible to pose a threat to humanity.
How can we escape the inhabitable Earth [destroyed by man or otherwise] if we do not explore more advanced knowledge of Science and others?

You don't know there are the pros and cons of Scientific knowledge?
True, there are still a ignorant majority who are living selfishly towards destroying the Earth.

But, you are ignorant of the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics.
All humans has an inherent moral function and on average it is getting active, thus there are more moral attuned people now than 1000 years ago.
This is why more and more people are concern about climate change, slavery [abolished legally], and other evils.

The advancement of the moral function of the average human will outweigh the cons from the abuse of Science.

Do 'you', "veritas aequitas", actually BELIEVE that 'you' are NOT living selfishly?

As usual you are onto 'oranges' while the topic is about 'apples'.

All humans are 'programmed' to be selfish in a way.
But all humans are also 'programmed' with the moral function to modulate and balance the inherent selfishness.

Personally I am doing my best to maintain a balance between 'selfishness' and 'empathy, compassion and altruism, for others.

On the other hand, due to your ignorance, you are a highly selfish person.

[Age]

You are really ignorant as sh1t.

Yes, objectivity is perspectival but with intersubjective consensus.
Objectivity = intersubjective consensus of justified true beliefs.

Scientific knowledge has to advance to deal with more complex problems which are identified as possible to pose a threat to humanity.
How can we escape the inhabitable Earth [destroyed by man or otherwise] if we do not explore more advanced knowledge of Science and others?

You don't know there are the pros and cons of Scientific knowledge?
True, there are still a ignorant majority who are living selfishly towards destroying the Earth.

But, you are ignorant of the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics.
All humans has an inherent moral function and on average it is getting active, thus there are more moral attuned people now than 1000 years ago.
This is why more and more people are concern about climate change, slavery [abolished legally], and other evils.

The advancement of the moral function of the average human will outweigh the cons from the abuse of Science.

Do 'you', "veritas aequitas", actually BELIEVE that 'you' are NOT living selfishly?

As usual you are onto 'oranges' while the topic is about 'apples'.

So, I ask ONE question in direct relation to what you CLAIM, then instead of just answering that question, you write some thing as profoundly STUPID as this.

Here is some advice for 'you', Do NOT write about 'oranges' if you do NOT want to be questioned and/or challenged about them.

All I did was ask a question in relation to what 'you' wrote.

All humans are 'programmed' to be selfish in a way.

LOL what a totally ridiculous thing to claim.

Are you able to back up this claim with actual EVIDENCE?

If you BELIEVE so, then do it.

But all humans are also 'programmed' with the moral function to modulate and balance the inherent selfishness.

So, to 'you', ALL of 'you', human beings, are programmed to be selfish but are ALL also programmed to be NOT selfish. Well that sort of covers ALL bases.

Are you able to SEE the absolute absurd contradiction here?

Personally I am doing my best to maintain a balance between 'selfishness' and 'empathy, compassion and altruism, for others.

Why are you only do your best if you are still being selfish?

Why do you not just STOP being selfish?

Or, are 'you' one of these human beings who BELIEVES that 'you' can NOT stop being greedy and selfish, and so have "justified" to yourself that "my greediness" is perfectly acceptable and okay?

And, if you BELIEVE that 'you' are born greedy, then 'you' will just go on abusing, harming, and hurting "others" around 'you'.

On the other hand, due to your ignorance, you are a highly selfish person.

So, the so called "logic" of "veritas aequitas" now IS; IF one is 'ignorant' of some thing, then that makes them are a HIGHLY selfish person.

For the aware readers, notice the almost instance of one NOT wanting to LOOK AT one's self and their WRONG doing here, and so quickly turns this around onto "another" ('me'), with the, also "justifying" of one's own WRONG behaviors, wording, that their own 'selfishiness' is 'lower' than the "others" is.

'I' am a HIGHLY selfish person, which makes them and their selfishness much lower or better than mine, (in their "eyes"), and I am supposedly HIGHLY selfish for the ONLY thing that could be thought of at the time, which was; because I am 'ignorant'. The absolutely ridiculousness of this is outstanding.

[Veritas Aequitas]

All humans are 'programmed' to be selfish in a way.

LOL what a totally ridiculous thing to claim.
Are you able to back up this claim with actual EVIDENCE?
If you BELIEVE so, then do it.

But all humans are also 'programmed' with the moral function to modulate and balance the inherent selfishness.

So, to 'you', ALL of 'you', human beings, are programmed to be selfish but are ALL also programmed to be NOT selfish. Well that sort of covers ALL bases.

Are you able to SEE the absolute absurd contradiction here?

Humans are naturally "programmed" with contradiction, the most fundamental,

• All humans are programmed with a very strong-will-to-live but at the same time,
  All humans are programmed to die in time eventually.

What is more contradictory than the above.

So all humans are programmed to be selfish at the same time programmed to be 'altruistic'.
These two contradictory programs are not equal in force or in opposition at all times.
A person can be selfish to others but not to his children.

A test for you to gather evidence;
If you are not a strong swimmer but managed to grab a drowning man [cannot swim] and he cling to your shoulders as you swim towards shore a distant away. Suddenly you felt tired pulling the drowning person.
The scenario is if you can give up pulling the drowning person, it is likely you will be able to swim back to shore and save yourself while the other person will be drowned.

Do you think you can ask the drowning person to give up clinging onto your shoulders?
I don't think so, because he is basically programmed to be selfish to ensure he live.

If you try to disentangle the person from clinging to your body, do you think he will give up clinging to you.
Being selfish to live, I bet the drowning person would have clung to your body very tightly and will not let go no matter how you try to push him off your body.

That is the potential evidence which you can try yourself.

What if you are in the position of the drowning person?
You may at this point say you can give up clinging to the person who is trying to save you, but in the actual situation, your inherent program to be selfish will take over and you will cling to the other person like a mad person and both will be drowned.

My above explanation means it is not what your arrogantly claim;
AGE: "LOL what a totally ridiculous thing to claim."

Point is you have this very blind arrogance even when you are ignorant.

[Age]

All humans are 'programmed' to be selfish in a way.

LOL what a totally ridiculous thing to claim.
Are you able to back up this claim with actual EVIDENCE?
If you BELIEVE so, then do it.

But all humans are also 'programmed' with the moral function to modulate and balance the inherent selfishness.

So, to 'you', ALL of 'you', human beings, are programmed to be selfish but are ALL also programmed to be NOT selfish. Well that sort of covers ALL bases.

Are you able to SEE the absolute absurd contradiction here?

Humans are naturally "programmed" with contradiction, the most fundamental,

LOL to express the statement that the animal 'human' is naturally programmed with 'contradiction', is a just a "self-justifying" learned contradictory behavior, in and of itself.

It seems to be that EVERY time 'you' are PROVEN WRONG 'you' come up with some thing MORE contradictory, in order to just 'try' and keep your ALREADY held BELIEFS about what is true and right.

• All humans are programmed with a very strong-will-to-live but at the same time,

But this is what I SAID, when I was opposing 'your' BELIEF that humans are born or programmed with a fear of death.

All humans are programmed to die in time eventually.[/list]
What is more contradictory than the above.

'your' BELIEFS.

Also, IF and when you learn and understand exactly WHERE 'programming' IS, and a few other things, then 'you' MIGHT understand how what just APPEARS 'contradictory' actually is NOT.

So all humans are programmed to be selfish at the same time programmed to be 'altruistic'.
These two contradictory programs are not equal in force or in opposition at all times.
A person can be selfish to others but not to his children.

'you' are just making things worse for 'you'.

A test for you to gather evidence;
If you are not a strong swimmer but managed to grab a drowning man [cannot swim] and he cling to your shoulders as you swim towards shore a distant away. Suddenly you felt tired pulling the drowning person.
The scenario is if you can give up pulling the drowning person, it is likely you will be able to swim back to shore and save yourself while the other person will be drowned.

Do you think you can ask the drowning person to give up clinging onto your shoulders?
I don't think so, because he is basically programmed to be selfish to ensure he live.

What 'you' 'think' is NOT necessarily what would HAPPEN.

What actually HAPPENS depends solely upon on the previous set of circumstances. 'you' do NOT know what ALL of the previous circumstances were, so 'you' do NOT know what would HAPPEN.

Also, WHY do 'you' BELIEVE that 'you' are programmed to be selfish to ensure 'you' "live"?

What is SO IMPORTANT, in the GRAND SCHEME of things that 'you' "live"?

If you try to disentangle the person from clinging to your body, do you think he will give up clinging to you.

What I 'think' does NOT matter.

What it IS that I KNOW is what REALLY MATTERS.

Being selfish to live,

WHY?

WHY are 'you' constantly being selfish "to live"?

What is the PURPOSE 'you', "veritas aequitas", "keep living"?

Do 'you', "veritas aequitas", have some GREAT IMPORTANCE that 'you' MUST "ensure you live"?

I bet the drowning person would have clung to your body very tightly and will not let go no matter how you try to push him off your body.

Okay. But, do you have ANY ACTUAL EVIDENCE for 'your' bet. Or are 'you' just making an ASSUMPTION?

I could provide examples of WHEN, what you bet on, would NOT be the case. But this would NOT change 'your' BELIEFS, as THEY stand now THEY ARE unchangeable.

That is the potential evidence which you can try yourself.

I have tried it, it does NOT work, as it can be to easily countered.

What if you are in the position of the drowning person?
You may at this point say you can give up clinging to the person who is trying to save you, but in the actual situation, your inherent program to be selfish will take over and you will cling to the other person like a mad person and both will be drowned.

If you say so. BUT, HOW do 'you' KNOW what 'I' would do?

'we' await 'your' reply.

My above explanation means it is not what your arrogantly claim;

Does 'your' explanation MEAN that it absolutely counters what I have said at all?

Could you be WRONG?

Or, do you actually BELIEVE that this is NOT a possibility?

AGE: "LOL what a totally ridiculous thing to claim."

Point is you have this very blind arrogance even when you are ignorant.

I am NOT sure 'you' are using the words 'arrogance' and 'ignorant' in their generally accepted, by some cultures, terms.

What do the words 'arrogance' AND 'ignorant' actually mean, to you, exactly?

Also, and by the way, just WANTING to live, or just having a DESIRE to live, does NOT mean that one HAS TO BE selfish at all about it.

[Eodnhoj7]

Is "I had barely anything to give her", just a BELIEF that "justifies" one's own self for being the Truly GREEDY human being, which they really ARE?

Not really, if I have to over draw an account or give someone my coat because that is what I have one me at the time there really isn't much else to be done.

If you had the ABILITY to "over draw an account" or "give someone your coat because that is what you had on you at the time", then OBVIOUSLY you had MORE than "barely ANY THING to give".

If you HAVE, to give, then you obviously HAVE MORE THAN ENOUGH.

Half empty/half full. Walking a tight rope is walking a tight rope.





I have not heard a human being speak from such a holier-than-thou attitude for quite a while now.

Really, because it is quite honest of an opinion.

Being Honest does NOT remove 'you' from having a 'holier-than-thou' attitude.

You never been disgusted by someone before? Or humanity itself? I would hardly relegate it to holy or not holy. If a person's attitude, behavior, or otherwise is disgusting....it is disgusting.

Yes IF some thing disgusts 'you', then it is "disgusting", to 'you'.

You said; "EVERYthing about her disgusted you". Therefore, absolutely EVERY thing about another human being "disgusted", 'you'.


Some of the attitudes 'you', human beings, have towards each other, like a holier-than-now attitude would disgust 'Me'. BUT I KNOW WHY those attitudes exist. The same goes with some of the behaviors 'you', human beings, do to each other, and to your one and only home, would disgust me. But, again, I KNOW WHY those behaviors exist.

I will give an example, to clarify "her":

Herr kid "needed" food. What type of food? "Mountain dew and chips". I bought Gatorade and noodles. She complained.

That is the short example, but that example sums up the whole situation.



Is "I gave her what I barely had" just more "self-justification" for being GREEDY?

See above.



Is there ANY one who does NOT 'deserve' HELP?

Yes, pigs.

Why do pigs NOT deserve help but ALL other animals do?

Because they consume more than what is needed, they can survive on x, but want x,y,z.

For example, if a person who is hungry is picky about the food they are recieving they are not hungry enough.

What has this got to do with HELPING?

Also, how can a person be 'hungry' if, as you say, "they are NOT hungry enough"? The two do NOT go logically together.

Sure, some one might TRICK 'you' into believing that they are hungry, when they are NOT, but this is a fault of 'you'. IF 'you' can be 'tricked' so easily, then that is a great LIFE lesson, that is; IF you take it, and learn by it.

You are right, but having worked with the homeless the majority are not hungry enough.



Is that the only reason?

Of course not, but a reason is still a reason.

If the point you wanted to make here was; A reason IS a reason, then you could have just said that earlier.

The point I was making was the way you wrote, it appeared that the sole reason WHY 'you' "do what you can" is PRECISELY "because you do not know their story".

So, are you now saying that there actually could be MANY other PRECISE reasons WHY 'you' "do what you can"?



Is there ABSOLUTELY any one that does not deserves HELP?

Is "mostly likely not" just another holier-than-thou BELIEF.

Taken any out of context, you forgot the "or" quantifier.

No, see above.

But, from above, from My perspective, you have reiterated that you BELIEVE you are MORE holier-than-thou than I first noticed.

That is your perspective, and a projection on your parts considering "you humans", in a derogatory sense as you yourself are human, is a holier than thou attitude.





What is supposedly "fundamentally irrational about Existence"? To me, there is absolutely NOTHING 'irrational' about Existence, other than some (most?) of what 'you' adult human beings do, in the days of when this is written.

You began the above with "to me" a subjective statement and fallacy.

OF COURSE 'to me' infers a 'subjective statement' BUT what is meant by, when you say, "and fallacy".

Relative point of view, agrippas fallacy.

WHY does starting a statement with 'To me' make the rest of the statement 'A FALLACY'?

Also "you adult human beings", when you yourself are human, is a holier than thou art attitude

Are 'you' able to answer the question, "Who am 'I'?" properly AND correctly?

If yes, then I would like to SEE it.

Actual I am answer it properly and correct: I therefore I am.

if no, then 'you' do NOT know who NOR what 'I' am.

Saying, " 'you' 'yourself are human' ", is very BIG CLAIM. Are 'you' now able to back it up?

If yes, then I would LOVE to SEE it.

If no, then that makes sense.

...unless you are claiming to be from another planet...lol.

lol

Nothing surprises me anymore though.

ok

So which planet?

Also, what is there exactly to 'solve' about Existence?

The only things that need solving are the problems that 'you', human beings, are continually creating.



To me, there is NO desolate nature of Existence. In fact the nature of Existence is absolutely perfectly wonderful AND beautiful.

But absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer.

So you are calling your self wonderful and beautiful?

Are you TELLING or ASKING?

The question mark infers the latter, while the statement infers the former.

Are your questions telling or asking?

[Eodnhoj7]

Objectivity = objective scientific knowledge

You just used a tautology and you are equating objectivity to perspective as well.

Use:
Understanding the solar system and how it effects Earth environment is critical for the survival of humanity.
The Earth will eventually be inhabitable.
Because of the tech we used developed by science....population growth problems? Right during the industrial revolution.


As such an understanding of the universe, its parts and system would provide the possibility of humans reaching other inhabitable planets.
Using means which already kill the planet and will kill the new planets.

How could human reached the moon and be able to explore other planets if we have not been studying to understand the universe and its parts.
Don't you know that?

You think by doing nothing your God will save humanity from an uninhabitable Earth??

See above, the science you use for tech results in the same problems you are trying to avoid. It is like creating a TV to watch nature, while complaining the TV production destroys nature.

You have no card.

You are really ignorant as sh1t.

Yes, objectivity is perspectival but with intersubjective consensus.
Objectivity = intersubjective consensus of justified true beliefs.

Scientific knowledge has to advance to deal with more complex problems which are identified as possible to pose a threat to humanity.
How can we escape the inhabitable Earth [destroyed by man or otherwise] if we do not explore more advanced knowledge of Science and others?

You don't know there are the pros and cons of Scientific knowledge?
True, there are still a ignorant majority who are living selfishly towards destroying the Earth.

But, you are ignorant of the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics.
All humans has an inherent moral function and on average it is getting active, thus there are more moral attuned people now than 1000 years ago.
This is why more and more people are concern about climate change, slavery [abolished legally], and other evils.

The advancement of the moral function of the average human will outweigh the cons from the abuse of Science.

So basically you are pushing group opinion with no scientific evidence their views are constant.

Do you want the speed or light example again, where before it was a constant and now it is changing?

The philosophy of morality and ethics is chaotic, it is like saying the religion of worshiping God.

[Age]

Thee Truth overrides what you wrote in your last post to me.

Also either one is hungry or they are not. What does "hungry enough" actually mean, to you?

[Eodnhoj7]

Thee Truth overrides what you wrote in your last post to me.

Also either one is hungry or they are not. What does "hungry enough" actually mean, to you?

Is that a question or a statement?... you failed to answer that question.